Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnold Walfred Lindall

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Walfred Lindall

written by someone named Terrance Lindall, this seems like a vanity page written by a relative. Postcard Cathy 15:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ in amongst all the trivia there is a vague possibility that he could be notable, but nothing is sourced and I can't find anything via Google bar a couple of abstracts from the American Association of Anatomists, so unless this can be imporoved, it'll have to go. (Edit - as DGG has done. Changed to Keep). EliminatorJR ^Talk 10:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Dr Lindall over the years published over 90 scientific papers and abstracts in a wide variety of fields". Fortunately, PubMed now goes back to 1950, at least for most english language journals. They list 45 peer reviewed articles; Web of Science lists 50. They are about 3/4 in such journals as JAMA, J. Nutrition, PNAS, Proc Soc Exp Biol Med. , Endocrinology, Diabetes, J Neurochemistry, J. Cell Biology--all the leading journals for their fields. and about 1/4 in Minnesota Medicine. To judge the importance, with WebofScience: his 7 highest papers got 90, 86, 71, 61, 48, 39, 35. h=13: 13 papers with more than 13 citations. This is reasonably good, though not spectacular, in medical science. His industrial career is as important as his academic--his best papers were published when with one of his companies. He probably never reached full professor because he made the switch. I formatted it and shortened the article appropriately.

You can't judge by the looks of the page. Family write similar pages for people of distinction as for people of no distinction; faculty typically write too much or too little if they do it themselves; students usually omit the important things when they do a favorite professor; PR people sound like PR people anywhere; the only way a good WP page gets written is when someone very familiar with WP writes it. DGG 04:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 23:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources attest notability. I'm uncomfortable hanging an article on merely the scholarly citations (really, the number of citations) alone. --Dhartung | Talk 07:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The article asserts notability and there are sources that indicate it but it would be best if the sources were cited. Capitalistroadster 07:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A terrible article that makes a very poor case of notability. "He traveled to Europe many times and lectured at scientific conferences" is vacuous at best. Only supervising six graduate students suggests non-notability. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 05:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 19:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not quite assert significance. He's had a full career, but nothing particularly notable. Also, no WP:RS to support what little is there. --Evb-wiki 16:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.